189 réponses à ce sujet

[whykikyouwhy]

SeanMurphy2 wrote...

Sometimes I still feel angry about it.

I am replaying Origins now. I am just reminded how much I love the game. I love the top down view, the art, landscapes, the dialogue system and being able to choose your race.

What still upsets me is that I don't think Bioware appreciates how great that stuff was. Seemed too casual about getting rid of it.

We lose top down view because they don't have the time to implement it. We lose the dialogue system for the tone based wheel. Lot of prerelease interviews criticising art style in favour of some Kurosawa style. No more choice of race in favour of iconic Hawke character.

I don't get a sense that Bioware is being casual about getting rid of anything. I think the devs appreciate much of what is contained within DA:O, and are proud of it. That doesn't mean that they won't seek to evolve or change to improve gameplay or to further tell their story. And they've been pretty candid about what they feel works and where they feel they need to reassess.

As far as "no more choice of race in favor of iconic Hawke character" - DA2 is meant to tell a chapter of the larger narrative from Hawke's perspective. It's a way to focus in on the events in Kirkwall, and how what transpired over the course of several years there in turn set the stage for conflict and turmoil to come. I don't think it's about Bioware denying players the chance to play an elf or a dwarf so much as it is that for this particular chapter, a human protagonist was key. 

[AlexJK]

SeanMurphy2 wrote...

No more choice of race in favour of iconic Hawke character.

Devil's advocate here: the choice of race in DAO actually made bugger-all difference to the game past your origin story. People remember it fondly because most of the origin stories were really good (compared to the intro in DA2 which was a lot more mechanical rather than story-driven), but forgot that for 90% of the rest of the game, you might as well have just been Jonny Hawke.

[Mmw04014]

AlexJK wrote...

SeanMurphy2 wrote...

No more choice of race in favour of iconic Hawke character.

Devil's advocate here: the choice of race in DAO actually made bugger-all difference to the game past your origin story. People remember it fondly because most of the origin stories were really good (compared to the intro in DA2 which was a lot more mechanical rather than story-driven), but forgot that for 90% of the rest of the game, you might as well have just been Jonny Hawke.

Do you mean it had no difference on how the overall story progressed? Because that's true. You'd still choose between Harrowmont and Bhelen no matter your race. You were never locked out of finishing a quest a certain way just because you picked a certain race. However, your race did have an impact, both on how certain people reacted to you, especially when you reached the part of the game were your origin took place. Yes, it could have been much deeper in a lot of ways, but it isn't like once you got to Ostagar, your race was completely handwaved. I don't think people would love playing different races so much if that was the case.

[Sutekh]

AlexJK wrote...

Devil's advocate here: the choice of race in DAO actually made bugger-all difference to the game past your origin story. People remember it fondly because most of the origin stories were really good (compared to the intro in DA2 which was a lot more mechanical rather than story-driven), but forgot that for 90% of the rest of the game, you might as well have just been Jonny Hawke.

There are in fact numerous times when dialog changes according to origin. Nothing major most times, but little things here and there that sometimes had real emotional impact.

More importantly, having different origins allowed different approaches to roleplaying, different mindsets. I don't play a Dalish as I play a CIty Elf or a Cousland. "My" vision and perception of the world changes. While origin isn't the only factor (far from it), it is the foundation.

So maybe technically origin doesn't go beyond a flag in the save, some dialog points, and cosmetics if we're talking race per se, but it has a huge impact on my experience of a given playthrough and thus adds a lot to replayability.

[Dakota Strider]

AlexJK wrote...

Devil's advocate here: the choice of race in DAO actually made bugger-all difference to the game past your origin story. People remember it fondly because most of the origin stories were really good (compared to the intro in DA2 which was a lot more mechanical rather than story-driven), but forgot that for 90% of the rest of the game, you might as well have just been Jonny Hawke.

The thing about DAO, is that you actually had a wide range of choices to make in most situations, after your origin story.  What you chose to do, was based on how YOU as an individual player chose to roleplay it.  So many races/classes may have made the same choses as each other, which is a matter of individual preference.  But at least it was player choice that drove the decision; not a DA2 dialogue wheel with two choices, (that were color coded, in case you were not intelligent enough to know the difference between the choices by simply reading them.)

[AlexJK]

Mmw04014 wrote...

However, your race did have an impact, both on how certain people reacted to you, especially when you reached the part of the game were your origin took place. Yes, it could have been much deeper in a lot of ways, but it isn't like once you got to Ostagar, your race was completely handwaved. I don't think people would love playing different races so much if that was the case.

Unfortunately, that's exactly how it did feel to me. I played through as a city elf, an elf mage and a human (and partial playthrough as a dwarf noble, never completed), and the only time the origin felt like it mattered at all was, as you say, in the parts of the game where your origin is specifically referenced.

I chose to play a city elf in my first playthrough because I wanted to see what it would be like trying to save the world when (according to the background information I'd been given up to that point) elves were generally considered to be second-class citizens at the best of times. Can't say I noticed much difference between that playthrough and when I played as a human noble.

The thing is, what actually made the difference in the way people treated you was the origin story, not the race. I know it's a subtle difference, but that's how it felt. Where a character reacted differently to me, it was mainly because (a) I was a mage; ( I had met that character in my origin; or © that character had some other reason to know of me, eg. the King greeting a human noble by name at Ostagar.

How about class origins as a compromise? You're human, but you get a different origin story for warrior, rogue or mage. For example, the DAO human noble would be a warrior, the dwarf commoner a rogue, and mage the same. Or something like that... saves on assets but still gives background choice?

[Pasquale1234]

AlexJK wrote...

SeanMurphy2 wrote...

No more choice of race in favour of iconic Hawke character.

Devil's advocate here: the choice of race in DAO actually made bugger-all difference to the game past your origin story. People remember it fondly because most of the origin stories were really good (compared to the intro in DA2 which was a lot more mechanical rather than story-driven), but forgot that for 90% of the rest of the game, you might as well have just been Jonny Hawke.

I beg to differ.

While it is true that the game itself did not provide a lot of varied reactions dependent upon race / origin, I certainly found them to be vastly different gameplay experiences.  A couple of brief examples:  My human noble warden was bold, confident, authoritative, trained for command since childhood, carried a strong sense of entitlement, and was able to use her previous relationships with much of the nobility to her advantage when preparing for the Landsmeet.  My dwarf commoner warden had never been to the surface and found its sights, scents, sounds, etc., to be very strange and fascinating.  She was socially awkward, uncomfortable with authority, struggled with her urge to swipe shinies, and felt much more comfortable in the shadows than in the spotlight.  Encountering Howe had a very special meaning for the human noble, and going to Orzammar carried different meanings for the dwarven origins than for any other.  Each origin gave you a unique background from which you could craft an entirely different personality, perspective, worldview - if you so choose.

The point is that, regardless of the game's reaction, my experience of playing these different wardens was very, very different.  Not so with Hawke, as the character's personality was pre-designed around a few pre-recorded tone selections.

A world of difference.

ETA:  I see there have been several more responses since I started writing this.

AlexJK wrote...
<snip>
...the only time the origin felt like it mattered at all was, as you say, in the parts of the game where your origin is specifically referenced.
<snip>
...Can't say I noticed much difference between that playthrough and when I played as a human noble.

Sounds to me like you were playing essentially the same character in each playthrough.  Your prerogative, but it isn't because the game restricts you in any way.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 17 avril 2012 - 02:10 .

[Zexiv]

AlexJK wrote...

SeanMurphy2 wrote...

No more choice of race in favour of iconic Hawke character.

Devil's advocate here: the choice of race in DAO actually made bugger-all difference to the game past your origin story. People remember it fondly because most of the origin stories were really good (compared to the intro in DA2 which was a lot more mechanical rather than story-driven), but forgot that for 90% of the rest of the game, you might as well have just been Jonny Hawke.

That actually brings up something that I was dissapointed with was the way your actions in Origins didn't seem to have much of an impact in DA2.  I'd expected more impact for example depending on which factions were backed in DAO maybe certain races wouldn't be available in DA2.  I'm trying not to spoil completely but if you backed X group and they killed off Y I could see not being able to play Y in future games based off that save.  Or if because of your actions another group no longer interacted with outsiders I could see not being able to play that race.

These story arcs though weren't carried foreward which I'd thought was the point of importing your saved games since my impression was those choices were going to have an impact have on the next game.  Hopefully race is included and the previous choices made while playing X charecter will have more of an impact on what what the game is like.  I liked the concept that that the future games would play somewhat differently based on which save you were loading up from the previous games even if it meant that certain parts were only available if you'd done X in the previous games since it increased the games replayability.

Take it easy

[Curlain]

AlexJK wrote...

SeanMurphy2 wrote...

No more choice of race in favour of iconic Hawke character.

Devil's advocate here: the choice of race in DAO actually made bugger-all difference to the game past your origin story. People remember it fondly because most of the origin stories were really good (compared to the intro in DA2 which was a lot more mechanical rather than story-driven), but forgot that for 90% of the rest of the game, you might as well have just been Jonny Hawke.

Just adding a bit to what others have commented.  The value in the Origins is not that the rest of the narrative changed that much (though as others have mentioned there are a number of different reactions for a range of npcs depending on your race etc, and different ending etc), but rather how they are tools to help shape a completely different character from one formed from another Origin.  It extended in a rather brilliant way (imo of course) the character creation process by actually allowing you to not simply pick a race and background, but play and help ground that character in that background, and was a great tool to allowing a player to deepen their character and background.  What there was after this (different npc reactions etc) is all that is need to help reinforce your character's own story and place, sure more opportunites and reactions would be great, but what was present was enough assist the RP of that particular character and their story.

And I think that is something that BioWare has forgotten somtimes, any wRPG is really about the emergent narrative, the story and experience of the PC the player creates.  Everything else is (or should be) tools to assist the growth, development and depth of that narrative, whether it's the sandbox world setting of ES style games, dungeon crawlers, or the narrative driven, character-rich npc style of BioWare.  The story of Origins is not the tale of the Blight of Ferelden, or Loghain's betrayal etc.  No, it's the story of how someone ended up becoming the key person in a major event by being in the wrong place at the right time, it's about who they are, what they did, how they changed, and who they meet how they see the world and everyone in it.  And the Origins helps to make that a different story every time, the set narrative is just the background to the real story.  That's how I see it anyhow (so it's all, as ever, very much just my opinion and experience of course )

Modifié par Curlain, 17 avril 2012 - 02:30 .

[P1NG]

Maria Caliban wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

I have this creeping feeling that Bioware might have been listening more to feedback from fans who already like DA2, than investigating why those who disliked DA2 with such vehemence, did so. If that is the case, the only thing that DA3 will accomplish is that the DA2-fans will get a better, more polished game. Will that sell?

They're listening to people who like the game but would like to see improvements as opposed to those who dislike the game? That's a sound strategy.

Those who like the game are outnumbered by people who don't like the game by a large margin, which logically translates into low sales which certainly doesn't equal a sound buisness stratgey.

[Mmw04014]

AlexJK wrote...

I chose to play a city elf in my first playthrough because I wanted to see what it would be like trying to save the world when (according to the background information I'd been given up to that point) elves were generally considered to be second-class citizens at the best of times. Can't say I noticed much difference between that playthrough and when I played as a human noble.

I noticed lots of difference. Granted, they were usually small, but I felt they were there with enough frequency to make playing different races a different experience. There were times that I felt "You know it would really be appropriate for the person I'm talking to to comment on my race," but they didn't happen that often for me. It's also up to the player to bring a lot of this variation based on race into their roleplaying. If you play a dalish elf, you could play that you hate all humans and there are dialogues available that let you do that.

AlexJK wrote...

How about class origins as a compromise? You're human, but you get a different origin story for warrior, rogue or mage. For example, the DAO human noble would be a warrior, the dwarf commoner a rogue, and mage the same. Or something like that... saves on assets but still gives background choice?

I would like origins no matter what. They don't have to be called origins, but I would like different backgrounds whether they choose to make the PC human or let you choose your race. If they did let us choose a race though, I wouldn't want to be restricted by class. Like if you want to play an elf, you have to play a mage. That feels almost as restrictive as DA2 was.

[Pasquale1234]

Curlain wrote...

And I think that is something that BioWare has forgotten somtimes, any wRPG is really about the emergent narrative, the story and experience of PC the player creates.  Everything else is (or should be) tools to assist the growth, development and depth of that narrative, whether it's the sandbox world setting of ES style games, dungeon crawlers, or the narrative driven, character-rich npc style of BioWare.  The story of Origins is not the tale of the Blight of Ferelden, or Loghain's betrayal etc.  No, it's the story of how someone ended up becoming the key person in a major event by being in the wrong place at the right time, it's about who they are, what they did, how they changed, and who they meet how they see the world and everyone in it.  And the Origins helps to make that a different story every time, the set narrative is just the background to the real story.  That's how I see it anyhow (so it's all, as ever, very much just my opinion and experience of course )

QFT.

They seem to have abandoned that, or at least de-prioritized it in favor of a cinematic presentation of a specific, pre-defined character going through the motions of a specific, pre-determined storyline.  At least, that's how DA2 felt to me.

[Sutekh]

AlexJK wrote...
 the only time the origin felt like it mattered at all was, as you say, in the parts of the game where your origin is specifically referenced.

Funny you would say that because the time when origin had the most impact for me was in a part that was barely related to it: the Loghain / Howe / Cauthrien meeting. Not as a Cousland but as a City Elf. It was one of those rare moments when I felt genuine, physical anger at a bunch of pixels and code lines. And it was awesome (in a good way).

What was just as awesome is that I already had lived that moment in previous playthroughs and it didn't feel the same then (others did, albeit maybe to a lesser extent), and then relive it with other Wardens and, again, getting totally different experiences from it.

The thing is, what actually made the difference in the way people treated you was the origin story, not the race.

On that, we kinda agree. But race added a layer that mere origin can't: NPCs can't react to your origin as much because they don't always know about it, while race is kind of obvious. In DAO, it wasn't acknowledged enough, but the difference and mix between race and origin led to nice moments, such as your Dalish Warden being treated as a servant and you could go all "What makes you think you can address me like this, shemlen?" while your City Elf Warden could be more like "I'm out of the Alienage now, no more of this". Two very different experiences due to different origins, but caused initially by being of the same race.

How about class origins as a compromise?
<snip>

I'd prefer something more nuanced and mixed, or at least be given the choice of at least a couple different backgrounds for a given class. If I want to play a rogue, I don't want to have to always be only one of the "petty criminal", "Robin Hood", "Crow escapee" or whatever rogue stereotype. I want to have a choice between those three, and possibly more.

It doesn't have to be full on origin ala DAO. Just a little prologue. If resources are really a problem, even cardboards would do if it means more variations and game reactions later on.

[LinksOcarina]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Curlain wrote...

And I think that is something that BioWare has forgotten somtimes, any wRPG is really about the emergent narrative, the story and experience of PC the player creates.  Everything else is (or should be) tools to assist the growth, development and depth of that narrative, whether it's the sandbox world setting of ES style games, dungeon crawlers, or the narrative driven, character-rich npc style of BioWare.  The story of Origins is not the tale of the Blight of Ferelden, or Loghain's betrayal etc.  No, it's the story of how someone ended up becoming the key person in a major event by being in the wrong place at the right time, it's about who they are, what they did, how they changed, and who they meet how they see the world and everyone in it.  And the Origins helps to make that a different story every time, the set narrative is just the background to the real story.  That's how I see it anyhow (so it's all, as ever, very much just my opinion and experience of course )

QFT.

They seem to have abandoned that, or at least de-prioritized it in favor of a cinematic presentation of a specific, pre-defined character going through the motions of a specific, pre-determined storyline.  At least, that's how DA2 felt to me.

Did you mean emergent gameplay? Because WRPGs are usually all about the gameplay over the narrative. The narrative is secondary to the world, the flair and combat found in most WRPGs. Skyrim is emblematic of this; you can do whatever you want, no restriction, just a pure fantasy of making your hero a badass. The core is mechanics, and the narrative compliments it as an optional hook, this is why games like Skyrim are more popular most of the time.

Narrative driven RPGs are more in a vein of what people like calling Light RPGs (or a JRPG, but god I hate that term), because the narrative is the focus and the gameplay takes the backseat in tandem with it. In other words, the gameplay is complimenting the narrative, not the other way around. The point of the game is to tell a story, a story that can change at some points, and not change in others. This is the fundamental difference between games like Skyrim and Dragon Age, if that makes sense. And it is usually the mechanical differences between a western RPG and a light RPG. 

It is essentially two different design philosophies. Ironically, BioWare has always done the same thing since Baldurs Gate; story emphasis first. And this actually goes against most traits of a Western-style RPG.  

So you are right that the story is designed to be different for everyone, and that it is the most important part of Dragon Age: Origins. But it is not a major element of western RPGs as you put it, since a majority of Western RPGs focus more on mechanics over a cohesive narrative.

[Curlain]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Curlain wrote...

And I think that is something that BioWare has forgotten somtimes, any wRPG is really about the emergent narrative, the story and experience of PC the player creates.  Everything else is (or should be) tools to assist the growth, development and depth of that narrative, whether it's the sandbox world setting of ES style games, dungeon crawlers, or the narrative driven, character-rich npc style of BioWare.  The story of Origins is not the tale of the Blight of Ferelden, or Loghain's betrayal etc.  No, it's the story of how someone ended up becoming the key person in a major event by being in the wrong place at the right time, it's about who they are, what they did, how they changed, and who they meet how they see the world and everyone in it.  And the Origins helps to make that a different story every time, the set narrative is just the background to the real story.  That's how I see it anyhow (so it's all, as ever, very much just my opinion and experience of course )

QFT.

They seem to have abandoned that, or at least de-prioritized it in favor of a cinematic presentation of a specific, pre-defined character going through the motions of a specific, pre-determined storyline.  At least, that's how DA2 felt to me.

Did you mean emergent gameplay? Because WRPGs are usually all about the gameplay over the narrative. The narrative is secondary to the world, the flair and combat found in most WRPGs. Skyrim is emblematic of this; you can do whatever you want, no restriction, just a pure fantasy of making your hero a badass. The core is mechanics, and the narrative compliments it as an optional hook, this is why games like Skyrim are more popular most of the time.

Narrative driven RPGs are more in a vein of what people like calling Light RPGs (or a JRPG, but god I hate that term), because the narrative is the focus and the gameplay takes the backseat in tandem with it. In other words, the gameplay is complimenting the narrative, not the other way around. The point of the game is to tell a story, a story that can change at some points, and not change in others. This is the fundamental difference between games like Skyrim and Dragon Age, if that makes sense. And it is usually the mechanical differences between a western RPG and a light RPG. 

It is essentially two different design philosophies. Ironically, BioWare has always done the same thing since Baldurs Gate; story emphasis first. And this actually goes against most traits of a Western-style RPG.  

So you are right that the story is designed to be different for everyone, and that it is the most important part of Dragon Age: Origins. But it is not a major element of western RPGs as you put it, since a majority of Western RPGs focus more on mechanics over a cohesive narrative.

I disagree, when I say emergent narrative that is exactly what I mean.  It starts with the character creation, it's continues through the game.  It's the developing biography of your character (or characters in some games or PnP sessions), you role play them through the game, while JRPG tends to have clearly defined character with their own goals etc.  Western RPGs focus of gameplay (and particularly character ddevelopment mechanics, dialogue mechanics etc) are there as tools to allow you to establish your own character creation and develop them through the game, using the tools it provides to assist the RPing (and variety of ways) of that character.  This differs with different types of wRPGs, and I would argue BioWare have been firmly wRPGs on the whole until DA2 (which does go more towards the JRPG model).  And that's what is meant by emergent narrative, the features of the game, it's gameplay mechanics and set narratives, quests and settings are there as tools for the creation and function and developing personal story and experience of the PC.

Extra credits gives a good breakdown (at least imo) of some key differences that mark out a wRPG from a JRPG.

extra-credits.net/episodes/western-japanese-rpgs-part-2/ 

[AlexJK]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

AlexJK wrote...
<snip>
...the only time the origin felt like it mattered at all was, as you say, in the parts of the game where your origin is specifically referenced.
<snip>
...Can't say I noticed much difference between that playthrough and when I played as a human noble.

Sounds to me like you were playing essentially the same character in each playthrough.  Your prerogative, but it isn't because the game restricts you in any way.

I'm quite happy RP'ing different personality traits for my characters, but I found it difficult to RP an oppressed second-class citizen elf when everyone was consistently being polite to me... imagination fail on my part possibly!

[Pasquale1234]

AlexJK wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

AlexJK wrote...
<snip>
...the only time the origin felt like it mattered at all was, as you say, in the parts of the game where your origin is specifically referenced.
<snip>
...Can't say I noticed much difference between that playthrough and when I played as a human noble.

Sounds to me like you were playing essentially the same character in each playthrough.  Your prerogative, but it isn't because the game restricts you in any way.

I'm quite happy RP'ing different personality traits for my characters, but I found it difficult to RP an oppressed second-class citizen elf when everyone was consistently being polite to me... imagination fail on my part possibly!

One of the things I really appreciate about DAO is the fact that becoming a GW gave your protag some instant prestige, especially during a blight.  My formerly oppressed wardens found themselves in various states of amazement, amusement, and downright discomfort anytime another character would defer to them.  Being a fugitive accused of Cailan's death was also taken very differently by different characters.

DAO was (and still is) an amazing playground for me, where I can try to see things from different POVs.  I'd be delighted if the franchise would provide another one, though I don't really expect it at this point.

[Pasquale1234]

Sutekh wrote...

AlexJK wrote...
How about class origins as a compromise?
<snip>

I'd prefer something more nuanced and mixed, or at least be given the choice of at least a couple different backgrounds for a given class. If I want to play a rogue, I don't want to have to always be only one of the "petty criminal", "Robin Hood", "Crow escapee" or whatever rogue stereotype. I want to have a choice between those three, and possibly more.

It doesn't have to be full on origin ala DAO. Just a little prologue. If resources are really a problem, even cardboards would do if it means more variations and game reactions later on.

Agreed.  The more I can create my own character, the happier I will be - but this current direction seems to favor pre-defined characters.

[LinksOcarina]

Curlain wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Curlain wrote...

And I think that is something that BioWare has forgotten somtimes, any wRPG is really about the emergent narrative, the story and experience of PC the player creates.  Everything else is (or should be) tools to assist the growth, development and depth of that narrative, whether it's the sandbox world setting of ES style games, dungeon crawlers, or the narrative driven, character-rich npc style of BioWare.  The story of Origins is not the tale of the Blight of Ferelden, or Loghain's betrayal etc.  No, it's the story of how someone ended up becoming the key person in a major event by being in the wrong place at the right time, it's about who they are, what they did, how they changed, and who they meet how they see the world and everyone in it.  And the Origins helps to make that a different story every time, the set narrative is just the background to the real story.  That's how I see it anyhow (so it's all, as ever, very much just my opinion and experience of course )

QFT.

They seem to have abandoned that, or at least de-prioritized it in favor of a cinematic presentation of a specific, pre-defined character going through the motions of a specific, pre-determined storyline.  At least, that's how DA2 felt to me.

Did you mean emergent gameplay? Because WRPGs are usually all about the gameplay over the narrative. The narrative is secondary to the world, the flair and combat found in most WRPGs. Skyrim is emblematic of this; you can do whatever you want, no restriction, just a pure fantasy of making your hero a badass. The core is mechanics, and the narrative compliments it as an optional hook, this is why games like Skyrim are more popular most of the time.

Narrative driven RPGs are more in a vein of what people like calling Light RPGs (or a JRPG, but god I hate that term), because the narrative is the focus and the gameplay takes the backseat in tandem with it. In other words, the gameplay is complimenting the narrative, not the other way around. The point of the game is to tell a story, a story that can change at some points, and not change in others. This is the fundamental difference between games like Skyrim and Dragon Age, if that makes sense. And it is usually the mechanical differences between a western RPG and a light RPG. 

It is essentially two different design philosophies. Ironically, BioWare has always done the same thing since Baldurs Gate; story emphasis first. And this actually goes against most traits of a Western-style RPG.  

So you are right that the story is designed to be different for everyone, and that it is the most important part of Dragon Age: Origins. But it is not a major element of western RPGs as you put it, since a majority of Western RPGs focus more on mechanics over a cohesive narrative.

I disagree, when I say emergent narrative that is exactly what I mean.  It starts with the character creation, it's continues through the game.  It's the developing biography of your character (or characters in some games or PnP sessions), you role play them through the game, while JRPG tends to have clearly defined character with their own goals etc.  Western RPGs focus of gameplay (and particularly character ddevelopment mechanics, dialogue mechanics etc) are there as tools to allow you to establish your own character creation and develop them through the game, using the tools it provides to assist the RPing (and variety of ways) of that character.  This differs with different types of wRPGs, and I would argue BioWare have been firmly wRPGs on the whole until DA2 (which does go more towards the JRPG model).  And that's what is meant by emergent narrative, the features of the game, it's gameplay mechanics and set narratives, quests and settings are there as tools for the creation and function and developing personal story and experience of the PC.

Extra credits gives a good breakdown (at least imo) of some key differences that mark out a wRPG from a JRPG.

extra-credits.net/episodes/western-japanese-rpgs-part-2/ 

Extra Credits is half right in regards to those differences (a lot of stuff they pointed out in their 3 parter is kind of off to be honest, mainly the history and the issues surrounding the "decline" of Light RPGs) That said, I will say you are right about expression, but wrong about fantasy, if using their terms for a moment will help.

As I pointed out above, one of the bigger ones is emphasis on story for Light RPGs vs Western RPGS, and despite giving you a customizable protagonist for Dragon Age: Origins, in the end you are still the Warden. So really, even from the standpoint of what Extra Credits is saying, Dragon Age has Light RPG leanings because it more desirable for a cleaner storyline that is about the interpersonal relationships, character dynamics, world issues and world introduction vs the exploits of the main character in a non-linear structure, living out the fantasy as we see fit.

Portnow's issues of fantasy, of putting yourself in the role do not really show up in BioWare games. They have elements of it in character creation and character building, as you say, but the storyline is essentially the same. It is the details in-between that are different. Let me put it this way, do you really become something you are not as the Warden? In the games narrative it makes it like that, humble origins into a thrusted situation, but that is all about the personal story of a character named Cousland,  Amell,  Tabris or Aeudcan. Those characters all exist in-game, it just so happens one of them was lucky enough to have Duncan intervene on their behalf, so we see what happens to him as he becomes this legendary Gray Warden.

So yes, the Warden is the protagonist, but the Warden is also an established character despite building him from the ground up. We just build the legend of the warden over becoming the warden, what they look like, what weapons and armor they use, who they like and hate, what they believe. By building the legend of the Warden we do give it personal expression, but  we are telling the story of the Warden more than being placed in the story of the Warden. 

So it is a very interesting mix of both in some regards, but I would still not call it a hallmark to Western RPGs in the end. 

[Pasquale1234]

LinksOcarina wrote...
]They have elements of it in character creation and character building, as you say, but the storyline is essentially the same.

The overall framework is the same, but other than that - it depends on the game.  Some allow greater variety in choice / consequence, optional content, different motivations, etc.

It is the details in-between that are different. Let me put it this way, do you really become something you are not as the Warden?

Yep.  The devil is in the details.

So yes, the Warden is the protagonist, but the Warden is also an established character despite building him from the ground up.

Warden is a title, not an established character.  The GW aren't picky about race, class, morality, or anything else.  All they seem to care about is willingness to undergo the joining and take up arms against the darkspawn.  Or not, because they can conscript the unwilling.

We just build the legend of the warden over becoming the warden, what they look like, what weapons and armor they use, who they like and hate, what they believe. By building the legend of the Warden we do give it personal expression, but we are telling the story of the Warden more than being placed in the story of the Warden.

I feel that I am doing both when I play the game, which is why I find it so delightful.

So it is a very interesting mix of both in some regards, but I would still not call it a hallmark to Western RPGs in the end.

Perhaps it is not, but it gives me a lot of what I want in an RPG and very little of what I do not want.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 17 avril 2012 - 05:44 .

[bEVEsthda]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Extra Credits is half right in regards to those differences (a lot of stuff they pointed out in their 3 parter is kind of off to be honest, mainly the history and the issues surrounding the "decline" of Light RPGs) That said, I will say you are right about expression, but wrong about fantasy, if using their terms for a moment will help.

As I pointed out above, one of the bigger ones is emphasis on story for Light RPGs vs Western RPGS, and despite giving you a customizable protagonist for Dragon Age: Origins, in the end you are still the Warden. So really, even from the standpoint of what Extra Credits is saying, Dragon Age has Light RPG leanings because it more desirable for a cleaner storyline that is about the interpersonal relationships, character dynamics, world issues and world introduction vs the exploits of the main character in a non-linear structure, living out the fantasy as we see fit.

Portnow's issues of fantasy, of putting yourself in the role do not really show up in BioWare games. They have elements of it in character creation and character building, as you say, but the storyline is essentially the same. It is the details in-between that are different. Let me put it this way, do you really become something you are not as the Warden? In the games narrative it makes it like that, humble origins into a thrusted situation, but that is all about the personal story of a character named Cousland,  Amell,  Tabris or Aeudcan. Those characters all exist in-game, it just so happens one of them was lucky enough to have Duncan intervene on their behalf, so we see what happens to him as he becomes this legendary Gray Warden.

So yes, the Warden is the protagonist, but the Warden is also an established character despite building him from the ground up. We just build the legend of the warden over becoming the warden, what they look like, what weapons and armor they use, who they like and hate, what they believe. By building the legend of the Warden we do give it personal expression, but  we are telling the story of the Warden more than being placed in the story of the Warden. 

So it is a very interesting mix of both in some regards, but I would still not call it a hallmark to Western RPGs in the end. 

I think you're wrong, of course. Well, half-wrong then, and extrapolating. But what does it matter? What's your point? Where do you want to go with this?
The heart of the matter is that you could role-play DA:O just fine. Just as most Bioware games prior to ME2 and DA2.